l|tLHIOIiUi|M'ltB?El<|tA2JltLL^ILUi|ll2Jltyi^»!iU<IOliyj| 




The 



Religious Question 
in Mexico 



A REPLY TO SENOR ENRIQUEZ 

(Extract from the Fourth Edition of " The Book 
of Red and Yellow") 



BY 



FRANCIS G. KELLEY 




PUBLISHED BY 

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH EXTENSION SOCIETY 

OF THE United States of America 

CHICAGO 

191S 



ffloraifn^ifn^w^o i rT^iff^ri^ iJ^BjaMaM^^ 



f 






The Religious Question in Mexico. 

A REPLY TO SENOR I. C. ENRIQUEZ 

By 

Francis Clement Kelley. 



" So much has been written about the religious difficulties in Mexico, 
so many groimdless accusations against the Constitutionalists have been 
made by the Catholic clergy, that I, as a faithful Catholic and Mexican 
revolutionist, feel it necessary to answer the numerous charges which are 
being unjustly heaped upon us. It is a lamentable fact that every one of 
our accusers, either wilfully or through sheer ignorance, is overlooking 
the most important laws of the Mexican Constitution. They seem utterly 
ignorant of the history and the conditions of the country, its people and 
its aims, about which they are writing. Every one of them is hiding 
behind the cloak of religious bigotry, and in the name of Christianity and 
the Catholic religion tries to bring naught but sorrozv to a people that is 
struggling for justice and independence." 

The paragraph above quoted contains the opening remarks of Senor 
I. C. Enriquez in his pamphlet, " The ReHgious Question in Mexico, by a 
Mexican CathoHc." Readers, however, will have to take the Seiior's word 
for his Catholicity. That is all we have. No stronger evidence is pre- 
sented in his pamphlet, though there is considerable evidence that he 
treats his nominal religion with about the same respect as he treats the 
truth — which is not saying much for either. 

Senor Enriquez has taken the trouble to send a copy of his pamphlet 
to all the members of the Senate and the Congress of the United States, 
and to give it a wide circulation generally ; all of which indicates that his 
friends are becoming anxious about American public opinion, which is 
not at all surprising. 

The paragraph I have quoted from his opening is remarkable, in 
that it promises to show that the accusations made against the Mexican 
revolutionists, not only by American Catholic writers, but also by 
ex-President Roosevelt, are " groundless and unjust," in that it proposes 
to prove that these accusers are ignorant of the laws of the Mexican 
Constitution, and the history and present conditions of Mexico, etc. ; 
and in that it even proposes to vindicate the actions of the Constitution- 
alists. T call such an opening " remarkable," because of the magnitude of 

1 



2 THE BOOK OF RED AND YELLOW 

the task to which it pledges its author. Not often does one meet so 
pretentious a program outHned for a pamphlet of just sixteen pages. My 
wonder in the beginning at the size of the Sefior's bite, was exceeded 
only by my amusement at the end when I saw that he could not chew it. 

The Constitutionalist Apologia, fathered by the Senor Enriquez, is 
the most wonderful collection of weightless words, proofless assertions, 
mirthless jokes, and profitless falsehoods with which I have had the mis- 
fortune to lose my time for many, many moons. The Sefior's task is 
preeminently one of excusing crime, for he does not take the trouble to 
offer any proof that the outrages of murder, sacrilege, arson, lust, destruc- 
tion, suppression of the press, robberies, lootings, etc., did not take place. 
He says they did not, and that is all. Then he at once proceeds to admit 
that they did, by attempting to excuse them. If they did not take place, 
why devote sixteen pages to the unnecessary task of an apology? If they 
did take place, would it be possible with all the water in the Atlantic 
Ocean, or all the lies of the Constitutionalist lie factories, to blot them out ? 

Since, however, the Senor insists on getting before the American 
public, perhaps I had better gratify him still more by making his name 
and his task known to a much larger audience. I am led to do this, not 
only for the sake of publishing the truth in the United States, but also for 
a reason that concerns the Senor and his friends. They have been grossly 
deceived about the American people. They were told that Mr. Wilson 
and Mr. Bryan were bigots " who would be pleased with anything done 
against the Catholic Church." They were told that the Protestants of 
the United States would be delighted with any act of the Constitutional- 
ists to injure and hurt the same Church. They believed the numerous 
lying papers, tracts and booklets, translated into Spanish, and scattered 
among them to give them the idea that the Protestants of the United 
States had a mortal hatred for their Catholic brethren. They thought 
that Catholics here had no standing, no rights that they would dare to 
claim, no voice that could be heard ; and they even suspected that Catholic 
votes did not count. Now they have had their eyes open. I want to open 
them still wider. They have discovered that American Protestants, out- 
side of a few bigots whose convictions are like their spelling — badly 
mixed — at heart desire to be just and honest men and women. They have 
begun to suspect that neither the President nor the Secretary of State has 
been correctly pictured to them. They have found that, when the just 
indignation of American Catholics is aroused, it means business. They 
have even discovered that Masons in the United States and Masons in 
Mexico think differently. So, at this late hour, they come forward as 
" Mexican CathoHcs " to praise the " poor priests " of Mexico, to hail 
them as " liberators " ; but making " saving " distinctions, they attempt to 



THE BOOK OF RED AND YELLOW 3 

throw blame upon the " high orders " of clergy, implying that these are 
foreigners, wealthy, rapacious, unpatriotic and cruel. With praises for 
some priests and curses for others, they would have the American Catholic 
forget that their pens, dipped in falsehood, have handles stained red with 
the blood on their fingers. 

But that will not do, Sefior ; it will not do at all. We know the story 
of Mexico. We know what has been done there for over fifty years. 
We never knew it before. It took martyrs' blood to call our attention to 
it, and the martyr's blood has not been shed in vain. There are sixteen 
million Catholics in the United States ; and to the last man, woman and 
child, they have learned or will learn the history of Constitutionalist 
crimes. They are going to see that justice is done the poor people of 
Mexico. They are not going to falter in the fight. They will see it 
through. Make no mistake — they are aroused as never before. You 
will have religious liberty in Mexico, or there will be a reckoning ; and a 
reckoning that will not end until the sum is totaled up, and put to the 
discredit, in the books of civilization, of the proper account. It will pay 
you and your friends, Sefior, to weigh carefully what follows. 

Your charges, the charges of a " faithful Mexican Catholic," as 
expressed in your pamphlet, may be summed up thus : 

Fhst. — That the accusations made against those whom you represent 
are false. 

Second. — That the higher clergy of Mexico are the enemies of the 
people, are robbing them and standing out against their political rights, 
by intrigue and scheming. 

Third. — That these same higher clergy ignore and disobey your laws. 

Let us see how much truth there is in what you have to say. 

Enriquez. — " It is a lamentable fact that every one of our accusers, 
either wilfully or through sheer ignorance, is overlooking the most im- 
portant laws of the Mexican Constitution." 

Answer. — Your accusers have overlooked no laws in the Mexican 
Constitution. On the contrary, they have constantly pointed out the kind 
of laws which Revolutionists have put upon the statute books of a 
Republic masquerading under the name of a democracy. The demand of 
American Catholics is based upon a knowledge of these laws, which are 
subversive of the basic principles of democracy, are tyrannical and strike 
at the very root of the rights which are supposed to be guaranteed by the 
Mexican Constitution, liberty of conscience. Here is a summary of the 
Laws of Reform, which I have already published in The Book of Red 
AND Yellow, page 57 : 



4 THE BOOK OF RED AND YELLOW 

" When the Revolution came, and with it the Laws of Reform of 
Benito Juarez, an end came also to what little freedom the Church had. 
She was despoiled of such possessions as had been left her. She was 
forbidden to teach, which means to open schools of any kind, except of 
theology. Her ministers even could not dress as clerics. The law of 
May 13, 1873, forbade any religious demonstration outside of a church 
building, and forbade clergymen or Sisters to dress in any way that would 
indicate their calling. The Constitution of 1857 interfered with personal 
liberty to the extent of forbidding anybody to enter a religious Order, 
and refused religious Orders a legal right to hold property. The law of 
July 12, 1859, suppressed religious Orders and religious societies, forbade 
the foundation of new congregations, ordered all books, manuscripts, 
prints and antic^uities belonging to such Orders to be given up. The law 
of February 26 suppressed female communities. The law of July 12, 
1859, took away all property from the clergy: but that of February 5, 
1861, returned to the Church its parochial residences, bishops' houses, 
etc. Then September 25, 1873, saw a new law which forbade any religious 
institution to acquire property or the revenue derived from it. The law 
of December 14, 1874, struck at the right of the clergy to receive legacies. 
The law of July 31, 1859, took away from the clergy the right to manage 
or have anything to do with cemeteries. The law of February 2, 1861, 
took from the Church her hospitals and charitable institutions, as also 
did a law of February 28 of the same year. To make it more certain 
that the Church could not be charitable, the law of August 27, 1904, 
forbade clergymen to act as directors and administrators, or patrons of 
private charities, and extended this decree even to include those delegated 
by clergymen. It will clearly be seen that, under the Constitution and 
Laws of Reform, the clergy had little power left, and the Church little 
chance to uplift the people." 

These are the laws of Mexico which Mr. Enriquez says we have 
ignored. How do American citizens like them? How would they enjoy 
having such laws put in force against religion in the United States ? And 
these are the very laws, Mr. Enriquez informs us later on in his 
pamphlet, that the Carranzistas want enforced to the letter. Are these 
the things that are going to bring happiness " to a people that is struggling 
for justice and independence " ? 

Enriquez. — Who is this man, who, for fear of divulging his name, 
signs himself "An American Citizen" ? Why does he fear to make his 
name known? Is it because he had the audacity to attack President 
Wilson's policies, etc.? 

Answer. — I can not tell Mr. Enriquez who the gentleman is, or why 



THE BOOK OF RED AND YELLOW 5 

he did not sign his name ; but I am signing my name. I can assure 
Mr. Enriquez that I do it with a full knowledge of the fact that the only- 
answer thus far made to people who happened to disagree with the 
Constitutionalists, was a shower of bullets from a firing squad. Happily 
for me I am not in " Constitutionalist " territory ; but I am not ignoring 
the risks. Here, however, assassination is dangerous. I beg to state also 
that I am making no attack on President Wilson's policies ; but I am 
making an attack on looters and bandits, who, in the name of liberty and 
justice, have strangled every bit of freedom that exists in Mexico, and 
who know no more about justice than the ordinary mad dog. 

Enriquez. — Every one who knows anything at all is aware of the 
fact that Masonry in Mexico is nothing more than a huge joke. 

• Answer. — For which statement. Masons will be thankful to Mr. 
Enriquez. How about the bold demand made on the American Govern- 
ment by the Mexican Scottish Rite, to instantly evacuate Vera Cruz ? 

And what about the following press sheet, dated February 8, 1915, 
sent out by the Mexican Constitutionalist Bureau, located in Suite 334, 
No. 17 Battery place, New York? 

" The Name of Huerta Crossed Out from the Books of Freemasonry." 
From El Pueblo, Vera Cruz, December 11, 1914. 

" He is considered unworthy of belonging to that league because he 
betrayed the Mexican people and allied himself with the clergy. 

'" Victoriano Huerta, the accursed Judas, who, during many months, 
soiled the national territory with the most opprobrious dictatorship, and 
whose crimes without number have had no precedent in the history of 
our country, has just been crossed out of the Big Catalogue of Free- 
masonry, under the grave accusation and indictment of having betrayed 
the Mexican people. 

" The respectable Concordia Lodge, of the town of Jalapa, was the 
one who initiated this just expulsion, as will be seen by the following, 
document : 

" ' To the Resp. : Gr. : Log. : United Mexican and Free Accepted 
Masons of the Or. : of Vera Cruz. 

'" M. : R. : M. : and VV. : HH. : 

" ' In an ordinary session, held on the 24th inst., this respectable, 
worthy and courageous lodge arrived at the following agreement : 

" ' There having been found in the files of this respectable Lodge a 
Letter Patent issued by the Grand Lodge of the State of Vera Cruz of 



6 THE BOOK OF RED AND YELLOW 

Free and Accepted Masons R. : E. : A. : and A. : under date of the 

24th of 1883, so that under No. 4 it should be effective in 

this Lodge, Concordia No. 17, in this Or. : of Vera Cruz, and where is 
inscribed as Venerable Master of same the M. : M. : Victoriano Huerta, 
the Grand Master informed the members and they unanimously agreed 
to cross out with red ink the name of the bad Mason, Victoriano Huerta, 
as unworthy of having his name appear in the Masonic Documents, and 
because of the understanding and alliance he made with the Catholic 
Clergy, and also for having betrayed the Mexican people. They also 
agreed to inform the Grand Lodge of Vera Cruz of this decision, request- 
ing it to make it known to all the grand lodges and regular corporations 
in the Republic, as well as to all the foreign corporations with whom you 
are on friendly terms. 

" ' In favoring us with information, in the understanding that the 
laws of the fraternity should be unconditionally obeyed, crossing forever 
out of the Big Catalogue of Freemasonry, the ex-Mason Victoriano 
Huerta, we feel sure that all our brothers will approve the inflexibility we 
have brought to bear in this case, with the idea of preserving the sound- 
ness of the order and purity of Freemasonr}^' " 

The Grand Master: 

Marcelino Sanchez. 

The Secretary : 

N. Nevramont. 

From this it appears that General Huerta was guilty of two capital 
crimes : One, the first and most important, of having been a Catholic, 
which every one knows is what is meant by an " alliance with the Catholic 
clergy " ; the other, secondary, of " having betrayed the Mexican people." 
To the eyes of Latin Masonry the first is the " crime " most deserving of 
punishment • — the unforgivable sin. 

If " every one who knows anything at all is aware of the fact that 
Masonry in Mexico is nothing more than a huge joke," why pass the 
action of the " huge joke " on to the press of the United States, as some- 
thing of such great importance to the Constitutionalist cause, as to justify 
a prayer to all American editors, to " kindly use this matter in the bulle- 
tin as liberally as your space will permit " ? And why, if Mexican 
Masonry does not concern itself with religion and politics-, as others 
would have us believe, should General Huerta be expelled for an "alli- 
ance he made with the Catholic Clergy " ? It will enlighten the members 
of the craft in these United States, in England, Canada and the British 
Islands, who still believe in God and religion, to know that the Catholic 
Church has here the unmistakable proof of what it has long pointed out 



THE BOOK OF RED AXD YELLOW 7 

to them, the fact that Latin-Masonry looks upon " alliance with the Cath- 
olic Clergy,'.' as full justification for expulsion and hatred, and worthy 
of approval as " preserving the soundness of the order and purity of 
Freemasonry." 

" I thank thee, Roderic, for the word " ; 
It nerves my heart; it steels my " — pen, 

but the religious Masons of English-speaking nations will "' thayik thee " 
more, and see still greater wisdom of the policy they claim to have 
adopted of not being on " friendly terms " with Latin-Masons. 

Enriouez. — // the men who plead the cause of the oppressed Mex- 
ican Clergy are to be taken at their word, it would seem that the whole 
Mexican nation is composed of inconsiderate brutes and beasts. 

Anszver. — The overwhelming majority of the Mexican nation is 
composed of good, pious and peaceful people, out of whose hands a 
minority of " inconsiderate brutes and beasts " have taken all arms, all 
money, a free press, the right to vote, the right to talk, the right to prac- 
tice their religion ; in fact, all rights to which any free people are entitled. 

Enriouez. — They would like to create the impression that murder 
and rapine are rampant in that country, and that the main attacks are 
directed against the Catholic Clergy. 

Answer. — It seems that it has been easy to create the impression. On 
page 10 of The Book of Red and Yellow, and following for a number 
of pages, is the whole story, giving dates, names of cities, names of 
persons, in fact, the fullest information that can be squeezed within the 
pages of a pamphlet for general circulation. // the statements are 
"ridiculous," why not answer themf The Constitutionalists are on trial 
before the court of American public opinion, for they are asking the 
United States to recognize them as the legitimate rulers of Mexico. They 
must bring before the court something more than mere statements. The 
evidence is in on the one side, and Seiior Enriquez in his rebuttal presents 
none. There are lawyers enough in the Senate and Congress of the 
United States to know how to treat a case unsupported by evidence. 

Enriquez. — The iirst thing our soldiers did when we entered a city 
was to seek out the houses of zvorship and offer our prayers in thanks to 
Him Who brought us victory. 

Answer. — Undoubtedly, there is a grain of humor in the Serior 
Enriquez. However, he is right in part, for certainly his friends did go 
to the churches! When they got there they shot at the statues ; stole the 



8 THE BOOK OF RED AND YELLOW 

pictures and sent them to America for sale ; desecrated the sanctuaries ; 
expelled such priests as had no money; took out the confessionals and 
burned them in the public squares ; fed the Blessed Sacrament to horses ; 
did unmentionably vile things with the sacred vessels ; used the vest- 
ments for horse blankets ; and then, in order to make sure that their 
" thanks " would be properly offered to the God Who " gave them 
victory," shot some of the priests. Yes, there is no doubt that the Sefior 
Enriquez is right : " The first thing they did was to go to the houses of 
worship." 

Enriquez. — To understand the true causes and reasons of dissension 
and strife between the people and certain members of the High Catholic 
Clergy, one must go back to the first struggles of Mexico against the 
Spanish domination. It is the same struggle. 

Answer. — It is the same struggle ? Yet for over fifty years the 
Spaniards have been out of Mexico. The Church has had no legal 
existence in Mexico. There has been no union of Church and State in 
Mexico. Clergymen have been forbidden by law even to wear a clerical 
collar on the streets of Mexico. Bishops have been arrested for blessing 
a cemetery in Mexico, even for attempting to lay a cornerstone; for 
presiding over "a gathering of children at Christmas time to make presents 
to the little ones of Mexico. The Church has not been allowed to receive 
a bequest in Mexico. She has not been allowed to hold property in her 
own name in Mexico. Inheritance taxes aimed at her confiscate any 
property she may have in the names of private individuals, by three trans- 
fers in Mexico. Yet it is the same struggle? For over fifty years, the 
Church has been bound hand and foot ; and the Constitutionalists assert 
that, shackled and manacled, she still is such a power that a new revolu- 
tion is necessary to prevent her from cutting liberty's throat. This is one 
of the mirthless jokes of the Sefior Enriquez. 

Enriquez. — The rulers of Spain left, but many of their harmful 
institutions stayed behind, and it is these institutions, which have been 
slowly devouring the minds of the Mexican people, which usurped all 
their rights, and keep them in ignorance, that we Mexicans are still 
fighting and struggling against. 

Answer. — In order to struggle intelligently against these institutions 
left by the Spaniards, you close schools, destroy colleges, loot laboratories, 
scatter manuscripts to the four winds of heaven, sell valuable books and 
typewriters for a few cents, and throw thousands of Mexican children 
out of the one chance they had to get an education. Our plan in the 
United States is to encourage every means of educating the people. The 



THE BOOK OF RED AND YELLOW 9 

Mexican Constitutionalist plan is to discourage it. Spanish institutions? 
Enoch, an English Protestant, says : " The Mexican of to-day owes all 
he has — law, literature, art and social system, and refinements of law 
and religion — to Spain." 

Enriquez. — To say that zve are nothing short of murderers, that we 
wantonly persecute the priests and the nuns, is to slander the Mexican 
nation. 

Answer. — Pardon me, let us make a distinction. To say that the 
Carranzista bandits wantonly persecuted the priests and nuns, is not 
indicting the Mexican nation ; for there are sixteen million people in 
Mexico who want peace and order, law and religion, and there are not 
more than two hundred thousand who have been deceived by the self- 
seekers who hired blinded fools to kill, and paid them with liberty to 
commit every lustful crime in the calendar. Why are the poor women of 
Torreon wearing black ? 

Enriquez. — Does any one believe that a nation which attained its 
freedom by the aid of its priests, would, a few years later, turn against 
them? 

Answer. — They have not turned against them. On the contrary, the 
people want them. See in The Book of Red and Yellow the Story of 
Yucatan, page 44, and the pitiful appeal made to the Carranzista governor 
by the women of the State, not to expel their priests. What about the 
rising of the people in Morelia ? (vide page 54) . 

Enriquez. — But the priests who fought for the liberty of the Mex- 
ican peons are not the high Church dignitaries of to-day. 

Answer. — This is to intimate, of course, that the high Church digni- 
taries of to-day are Spaniards ; but there is not a single Spaniard holding 
a Bishop's See in Mexico. Every single bishop in Mexico is a Mexican. 
Every one of them is a patriotic Mexican; but they have what may be 
considered a weakness in the Sefior Enriquez's eyes — a love for law and 
order. They want a country, not a slaughter-house. They prefer ballots 
to bullets. They want liberty of conscience and freedom of worship, and 
a chance to educate their people ; all of which has been denied for over 
fifty years. 

Enriquez. — Those who failed to obey, or showed the least sign of 
disobedience, were punished, with the zvell-known Spanish Inquisition, 
the tortures of hell. 

Anszver. — Strange statement from one who reproaches us with 
ignorance of Mexico's history. The Mexicans were, by special royal 



10 THE BOOK OF RED AND YELLOW 

decree, exempt from the jurisdiction of the Inquisition, which was a state 
institution in Mexico, as it was in Spain. 

Enriquez. — By such means (land grants, inheritances, etc.), the 
Church and certain high dignitaries of the Church, became the Supreme 
Power of Mexico. 

Answer. — If that is true, why was it that Bishop Las Casas had to 
fight the State in order to secure the rights of the Indians ? Why was the 
Church obliged to constantly barter with Spain for the liberties of the 
natives ? 

Enriquez. — It was to these poor native priests that the oppressed 
and down-trodden Mexicans went in time of dire need. 

Answer. — Among the hundreds of exiles here and in Cuba, two- 
thirds are the same poor priests, some Indian priests. We had to find 
bread for them to eat and clothes to wear. I know how much wealth 
they possessed, for I saw and spoke to them. Senor Enriquez prints a 
letter which, he says, was written by the Archbishop of Mexico. That 
letter states that the salary of the Archbishop, himself, was 750 pesos a 
month, which means $325 in our money. With that he had to maintain 
his entire establishment. Now, the Archbishop of Mexico is the highest 
dignitary in the Mexican Church ; so for the food, clothing, servants, 
household expenses and charities of the highest of the high Catholic 
Clergy there was $325 a month. By the way, did the Senor Enriquez ever 
hold a public office in Mexico? If he did, how much salary did he get? 
According to the same letter, Canons of the Cathedral of Mexico received 
120 pesos a month, which is $60 of our money. The choir chaplains got 
from thirty to forty dollars, which is from fifteen to twenty dollars a 
month in our money. These " high clergy " in Mexico certainly are living 
in luxury and robbing the people. If an average were struck of the gifts 
to the Church by the Mexican peon, it would show less than twenty cents 
per capita per year. This is fine robbery. 

Enriquez. — (Quoting from another) "Indeed, a careful estimate of 
the revenue of the Church, just previous to the War of Independence, 
reveals the enormous figure of $^0,000,000 a year." 

Answer. — Yet. Professor Noll, very prejudiced and anti-Catholic, 
estimates it about $90,000,000 in capital. There is a big difference 
between a capital of ninety million and a revenue of fifty million annually. 
In order to get this properly before people who think, let them estimate 
the revenue of, say, the Episcopal Church in the United States. Make 
as conservative an estimate as you please of the revenue of its missionary 
societies — home, foreign and diocesan — its schools, colleges, universi- 



THE BOOK OF RED AND YELLOW 11 

ties, churches, pension funds, endowments of all kinds. Then stir in the 
fact that there are about fifteen million Mexican Catholics, to less than 
one million American Episcopalians, and serve hot. 

Is it a horrible crime for a clergyman to seek the means of livelihood ? 
Why not condemn the twelve Apostles ? As long as there is a dollar not 
yet sent to the banks of El Paso, San Antonio, New York and Paris, 
against the great day of the exodus, the Constitutionalists have a bone 
to pick with the clergy. But are the clergy of Mexico rich ? I happen to 
know that the Constitutionalists secured the private papers of the bishops, 
copies of their last wills and testaments, the diocesan records of each, and 
the Chancery ledgers. They must know, then, all about the wealth of 
the clergy of Mexico. Then, why content themselves with assertions 
when it would be so easy to publish the facts and proofs? "There's a 
reason." The books and records will not bear out the Constitutionalist 
assertions. 

Enriquez. — The Church had become such a powerful force in the 
political life, due to its enormous possessions, that it could change the 
government any time it wished to do so. 

Answer. — How? By votes? If the high Church dignitaries could 
change the government any time they wished to do so in that way, the 
people could not have been against them. As Mexican citizens, the high 
Church dignitaries would have had the right to take the same interest in 
politics that any other citizen takes ; and it is up to the people to judge. 
If they judged that it was time to change a government, is not that within 
their democratic rights ? Where is your complaint ? As a matter of fact, 
however, since there were no such things as honest elections, by what 
other means could the bishops change the government ? By revolutions ? 
When did they rebel? Who led the revolutions? Who supplied the 
money ? Hand us out the facts ; that's what we are after. Or, if these 
high Church dignitaries could change the government when they wished, 
inform us why they did not change the Laws of Reform. Would they 
have kept these oppressive laws over themselves for fifty years, when 
they could have changed them by the simple operation of changing the 
government? Is your -humor again getting the better of you, mi estimable 
Seriorf 

Enriquez. — The Revolutionists devoted much of the new Constitu- 
tion to the elimination and the divorce of the Church from the State. 

Answer. — Let me see, did not the Senor say that the present Revolu- 
tion of Carranza is the " same struggle " as that of the Revolution against 



12 THE BOOK OF RED AND YELLOW 

Spain ; and that the ConstitutionaUsts are trying to separate Church and 
State nouff But they were separated years ago. Vat iss? 

Enriquez. — Of late much has been written about the ignorance and 
immorality prevalent among the poor classes of the Mexican populace. 
It is said that a large majority of them totally disregard the marriage 
ceremony and live in open violation of the sacraments of marriage . . . 
An investigation has proven that the price for marriage sacraments, 
instituted by the high Catholic Clergy, is so unreasonably high, that it is 
almost impossible for the poor to meet it. 

The answer to part of this statement comes from a most unexpected 
source. I take the following from the editorial columns of The Church- 
man (Protestant Episcopal), of February 6, 1915: 

" Mr. William Watson, who has lived for nearly eight years in Mexico 
in some of its best-known centers of population, uses vigorous language 
in criticising the statements regarding the religious condition of Mexico 
that appear in the American press. He does not agree with those who 
ascribe the present revolution to religious causes. While the uprising is 
supposedly conducted for the benefit of the unpropertied class, the peon, 
it seems strange, he says, that their churches suffer just as much from 
robbery and outrage as the churches of the rich. Dealing with the ques- 
tion of ecclesiastical fees, Mr. Watson finds much exaggeration in recent 
reports. In the places where he has lived, Puebla, Oaxaca, Guadalajara 
and Mexico City, baptisms cost from 33 cents to 69 cents; 'it has been 
asserted that they cost $5. Marriage fees are from $2.50 to $3 ; requiems 
cost 50 cents; special prayers, 5 cents; confirmation, 15 cents; con- 
fessions and communions cost nothing. ' Once a year in all these places 
mission priests go around holding missions. During the missions bap- 
tisms and marriages are gratis, although sometimes 50 centavos is asked 
for a marriage during a mission.' When it is also taken into consideration 
that the Roman Church has no ' envelope system ' for its support, but 
depends upon these methods for collecting from the poor people, it will 
be seen that the peon contributes but little to the support of the Church, a 
fact patent to all who visit their little shrines and see their priests. The 
Roman Church has also a practice of asking for Diesmos, or the Jewish 
tenth. But this does not touch the peon, who has no land or money. The 
Diesmo is given on New Year's Eve. People with money are always 
charged according to their ability to pay. It is commonly reported that 
the Roman Church is responsible for the ignorance of the people. This 
is not true, either. In Mexico City there are many fine schools controlled 
by the Church, and there are not more than three or four decent buildings 
built by the State for school purposes. The Church has schools because 



THE BOOK OF RED AND YELLOW 13 

the public schools do not begin to make provision for the children. Over 
fifty years ago, Juarez robbed the Church of their all in order to benefit 
the people, just as the present warring factions are doing. And just as 
the peons did not benefit by the Juarez theft, neither will they benefit by 
it now. Let us be honest about the Roman Church, even if we do not 
love it." 

Mr. Watson is certainly honest about the Church that he does not love. 
I would change only a word of his letter — the word " cost." There is no 
"cost." The Church permits offerings on the occasion of marriages, 
baptisms, etc. " Cost " implies that a price is put on a spiritual benefit. 
As a matter of fact, the offering is not required from those who state 
that they are unable to make it. In many parts of Latin-America the 
clergy have no other means of support apart from these offerings. An 
offering is not even permitted on the occasion of confession. 

As to the assertion that many Mexican men and women live together, 
without the marriage ceremony ; I do not doubt but that Mexico has its 
share of immorality. That is not to be wondered at, since the State has 
been striving for half a century to break down the religious life of the 
people. What is to be wondered at is the Carranza remedy. That 
remedy is outlined in a decree published by the "First Chief," quite 
recently. Plis plan to prevent the lower classes of Mexicans from living 
in open violation of the sacrament of marriage, is to legalise this sort of 
prostitution by allotving divorce by mutual consent. He figures, I sup- 
pose, that there will be a great many more ceremonies, every couple con- 
tributing from ten to fifty during a lifetime ; since, each three years, the 
decree permits the married pair to separate and each to select a new con- 
sort. Now, in Mexico, as is explained in The Book of Red and Yellow, 
people like to have the marriage ceremony at their houses. That costs 
sixteen pesos, plus the price of the two carriage trips to bring the 
civil official to the two ceremonies. The Church expects an offering from 
those who are able to give it, but nothing from the poor. The civil official 
must have his carriages and fees. The Constitutionalist remedy will be 
a fine thing for the civil officials, since the Church is not to be permitted 
to solemnize marriages. All fees are to be thrown into the hands of the 
officers of the State. This is a method of increasing the revenue of office- 
holders, which possibly did not occur to our own politicians. Surely, 
Sefior Carranza deserves credit for pointing out a chance we overlooked. 

Enriquez. — But the greatest tragedy of the Catholic Church in Mex- 
ico is that it is a house very much divided against itself. It possesses no 
unity of purpose; it has no honest desire to uplift, to educate and allevi- 
ate the needs and sorrows of the masses. 



14 THE BOOK OF RED AND YELLOW 

Answer. — This will certainly be news to the great number of intelli- 
gent Americans, who think that the Catholic Church has a considerable 
unity of purpose and is anything but divided against itself. In fact, it 
is one institution in the world which is known to have the strongest unity 
of purpose, and which will tolerate no serious division within. However, 
it would be rather hard for the Church to possess any more than an 
" honest desire to educate and alleviate the needs and sorrows of the 
masses " in Mexico, because if it tried to carry such an honest desire into 
practice, it would find that, in the eyes of the Mexican laws, it does not 
exist; that it can not build a hospital, ,a school, an orphanage, a social 
center, or even a lazaretto, because it has no right under the law to do so. 
It has no legal right to be charitable, to teach, to nurse the sick, to help 
the down-trodden, or even to dry the tear of sorrow. When it attempts 
these things, it has to do them against the laws, as Mr. Enriquez acknowl- 
edges. In the beginning of his pamphlet, Mr. Enriquez complains that 
the Church has thus violated the law. Now, he complains that she won't 
violate it. What does he reall}^ want the Church to do? 

Enriquez. — The true condition of the Catholic Church is that it is 
composed of wealthy, foreign, high clergymen and of poor priests zvho 
are native Mexicans and Indians. 

Anszver. — Who are the high dignitaries of the Church of Mexico? 
First, Archbishops — but all are Mexicans ; second. Bishops — all Mex- 
icans ; third, Vicar-Generals — all Mexicans ; fourth, Canons — nine- 
tenths Mexicans. (I do not know of a single foreigner among the 
Canons.) These are the dignitaries. Now who are the lesser clergymen? 
Parish priests of the cities — nine-tenths Mexicans ; country pastors — 
nine-tenths Mexicans ; assistant priests — nearly all Mexicans, btit zvith a 
good percentage of Spaniards. Mark you, the largest percentage of for- 
eign clergy is found among the assistants. But where there are many 
Spanish pastors, as in sections of Yucatan, they are there only because 
they had to be called in as helpers. There was a scarcity of native priests. 
That is why, too, there are Spaniards among the religious Orders of 
teachers. It is the policy of the Church in Mexico, as in every country, 
to secure a native clergy. 

Enriquez. — They (the clergy) intrigue, they scheme. They are the 
friends of the reactionary forces; they kow-towed with Dias when he 
was in power and used Huerta and his henchman. Dr. Urrutia, when they 
reigned supreme. 

Answer. — x'Vnd yet Diaz promulgated some of the laws which the 
" patriotic " Constitutionalists love, because these laws oppressed the 
Church ; and Huerta, though he was only a short time President, left one 



THE BOOK OF RED AND YELLOW 15 

as a souvenir of his dictatorship. Does it ever occur to Senor Enriquez 
that the laws of the Church require CathoHcs to obey the civil power and 
respect the civil authority ? By what right would the Church or its " high 
dignitaries " take it upon themselves to decide that they should disobey 
a President accepted by the people? Diaz was President, recognized by 
Mexico, recognized by the United States, recognized by every government 
in the world. Huerta was President of Mexico, recognized by other 
governments, though not by the United States ; but he succeeded to 
power in obedience to all the forms of Mexican law. If the Church had 
rebelled against him, we would have had Sefior Enriquez and others of 
his kind pointing out this fact with great triumph. The Church did not 
rebel. The Church was peaceful and accepted the government that was 
over its people, as it always does. Noiv, it is charged with treason because 
it did the one thing that it could do without becoming treasonable. Again 
I ask what does Seiior Enriquez want the Church to do? 

As to scheming, what was the Church scheming about? To change 
the laws so as to give her some liberty? She could claim a right to do 
that under a democracy. Does the gentleman forget that Mexico was 
pretending to be a democracy ? 

Enriquez. — In fact, they were the enemies, for they always upheld 
the benighted forces of Mexico. 

Anszver. — Who were these benighted forces? Everybody who dis- 
agreed with the Constitutionalists? Everybody who thought that a pure 
democracy ought to grant liberty of worship, freedom of education, and 
the common ordinary natural rights of citizenship? The trouble is that 
Senor Enriquez and his kind have settled in their own minds what they 
zvant; and, looking back over the history of Mexico, they coolly dub as 
traitors everybody who even suggested that what they zvant was not the 
best thing for the country. A democracy is "of the people, for the people 
and by the people." But in Mexico any one who holds contrary opinions 
to the small circle of revolutionary " patriots " must be considered as 
having no rights which their opponents are obliged to respect. This is 
why Mexico settles her troubles with bullets instead of ballots. Verily, 
the path of the politician in Mexico is strewn with thorns, and there is 
danger in his ways. 

Enriquez. — The shameless manner in zvhich the high Catholic clergy 
forsook their religious offices and dabbled in politics is illustrated by the 
numerous letters which zvere left behind by Dr. Aureliano Urrutia, 
Minister of Interior in the Huerta cabinet. 



16 THE BOOK OF RED AND YELLOW 

Answer. — Sefior Enriqiiez has added six letters to prove this asser- 
tion — six specially selected. We commend a study of these letters to 
every one interested. 

The first was written by Archbishop Gillow, evidently a personal 
friend of the Minister, for he addresses him : " Esteemed Sir and 
Friend." He speaks of certain disturbers who were molesting the author- 
ities, and interfering with public peace. He commends one of the gov- 
ernors, who worked for the well-being of his district. He speaks of false 
accusations being made by disturbers against this governor. He com- 
mends a Judge of the Primary Court of Claims, who is trying to do his 
duty. He offers his letter for the purpose, as he says, of maintaining 
" order and peace in this district," and he thanks the Minister in advance 
for whatever he may deem fit to do in the interests of honest citizens. 

This certainly is an " incriminating " letter, and clearly proves that 
the Archbishop was interested in peace and order ; therefore, a splendid 
example of a " traitor " according to Constitutionalist ideas of what a 
traitor is. 

The next letter is from the Archbishop of Mexico City to the same 
Minister. It sets forth, that under the " beneficent " laws of Mexico, he 
was robbed of his home, which was taken over for governmental offices. 
He asks that it be restored to him. He suggests that some restitution 
might be made also for the cash, sacred vases, such as chalices, shrines, 
lamps, articles of silver, jewels, all stolen from the Cathedral ; also for 
the Seminary building next door, which was likewise taken, and for the 
houses of his chaplains. He speaks of the poor financial condition of his 
diocese as a consec[uence of this robbery ; and he asks for restitution 
at least in part. Sefior Enriquez calls these " alleged damages." So it is 
not a sin to steal from an Archbishop. Mexican " professionals " will 
take note how they may steal without danger. 

This Archbishop is a horrible example of a " traitor " ; the man 
actually wants to get back the things he was robbed of. But there is a 
mitigating circumstance in his favor ; he is not a full traitor because he 
would be satisfied with a part restitution. 

The third letter is from the Archbishop of Puebla. I do not know 
what it is about, because, as a matter of fact, it does not say anything. 

The fourth is from Archbishop Gillow again. It refers to the fact that 
the Archbishop, with a lawyer and an engineer, had been appointed by 
General Diaz " to study and report " on some proposed concessions for an 
international and interoceanic railway. It appears that the Archbishop 
did not agree with his colleagues, because he did not want to have the 



THE BOOK OF RED AND YELLOW 17 

State give up so much money to the concessionaries. He urges that time 
has proven the correctness of his ideas, and points out two lines,' which, 
in his opinion, are of greater importance to Mexico. He urges the neces- 
sity of completing, as soon as possible, the railroad from Mexico to 
Tehuantepec, via Puebla and Oaxaca. He mentions that the Isthmus of 
Tehuantepec, using Baron Humboldt's expression, is the " bridge of the 
universe," etc. He speaks of the great importance of such a line to his 
own State of Oaxaca, and says that he is interested in its construction 
for the advantage of the people of his diocese. He speaks also of his 
knowledge of the State and of its riches and possibilities. Practically 
that is his whole letter. 

. Another clear proof of " treason." This man was interested in his 
State, and in the Republic of Mexico. He refused to vote an enormous 
sum for unnecessary railroad concessions ; but points out where, in his 
.opinion, the necessity does exist. That he has a right to do so, and that 
he was a man whose opinion was worth while, is proven by the fact that 
the President had appointed him to such an important commission. He 
places his knowledge at the disposal of the Minister of the Interior, asks 
for nothing, but points out what he thinks would result in national benefits. 
I wonder if Senators and Congressmen of the United States could not, 
each of them, gather up a large series of " incriminating " letters of this 
kind against " traitors," clergymen of all denominations, in Podunk, Blue 
Ridge, Pine Grove, and to the uttermost ends of the Republic, pointing 
out, not benefits such as those which would result in a railroad over the 
Isthmus of Tehuantepec, but benefits in dredging- a mud creek. If Sehor 
Enriquez had only known something about American politics, he would 
not have been trapped into publishing a letter of this kind as a proof of 
" treason." Why, bless your heart, my dear Sehor, letters endorsing even 
applicants for postoffices are considered as the outpourings of patriots, 
and clergymen write them every day. 

The fifth letter is from the Minister to the Archbishop. He acknowl- 
edges having received the suggestion and of having considered it. He 
believes that such a railroad is of great importance, not only from the 
military point of view, but for the convenience of the public in general. 
He promises to take an interest in it when circumstances permit. 

There is no doubt that such a letter as this, coming from the Minister 
of the Interior, should be punished with death. I shall always, in the 
future, with Senor Enriquez's standards of patriotism before me, look 
with grave suspicion upon any Cabinet officer of the United States, who 
ventures to suggest any improvement of any kind whatever, or to take 



18 THE BOOK OF RED AND YELLOW 

an interest in any public work that might possibly be of advantage to the 
people. 

The sixth and last letter is supposed to be from the Archbishop of 
Michoacan to the same Minister. It is unnecessary for me to quote from the 
letter, because I am acquainted with the real Archbishop of Michoacan. 
This letter is dated September ii, 1913, and is signed " Jenaro Mendez." 
It happens that the Archbishop of Michoacan's name is not Jenaro 
Mendez, but Leppoldo Ruiz. It is up to Mr. Enriquez to explain whether 
he is lying only to the extent of attempting to palm off another man's 
letter as that of the Archbishop of Michoacan, or whether he invented 
the whole letter and signed another name, to avoid incarceration in the 
penitentiary for forgery. This, you see, would be a real danger, because 
both Senor Enriquez and the real Archbishop of Michoacan are now in 
the United States, where forgery is punishable, and where the fact that a 
man happens to be a clergyman of any rank, does not prevent his securing 
the protection of the law. 

Arriericans will quickly see that in Mexico, under the rule of the Con- 
stitutionalists, a clergyman dare not even suggest his ideas on any subject 
without danger of being looked upon as a traitor. 

Enriquez. — At the same time zvhile they are demanding protection 
for their co-religionists in Mexico, Germany is devastating one Catholic 
country after another. 

Answer. — Germany is engaged in a war. Catholics of Germany are 
fighting for their country, as are Catholics of England, Belgium and 
France for theirs. Neither side is in a war of destruction against religion. 
If churches and religious houses suffer, it is not because they are buildings 
consecrated to God, but because they are in the line of fire. If priests and 
sisters are killed, it is not because they are priests and sisters, but because 
they happen to be on duty where the shots fall. Bullets do not select 
landing-places for themselves. Mexico, however, is at war with no other 
country. She is killing her own citizens to settle political questions that 
long ago she promised to settle with ballots. She is in the hands of 
anarchy, upheld by disciples of anarchy, who destroy churches and 
religious houses because they are churches and religious houses. She 
kills and exiles priests and sisters because they are priests and sisters, 
and for no other reason. There lies the difference. 

Enriquez. — The cries of clergymen that the United States swoop 
down upon Mexico and at the point of a gun perpetuate the power of the 
Catholic Church, is in itself the greatest indictment against the leaders who 
are working in that direction. . . . The American people and the 



THE BOOK OF RED AND YELLOW 19 

Washington Administration are hegimiing to realise that not all is well 
with high Catholic dignitaries in Mexico. 

Answer. — Why drag in the Washington Administration? If the 
Washington Administration has no right to concern itself about the affairs 
of Mexico, as Mr. Carranza has time and time again intimated to the 
Administration in most insulting terms, what interest has the Washington 
Administration in the condition of the " high Catholic dignitaries in 
Mexico " ? What interest has the Senate and Congress of the United 
States, to whom the Sefior has been careful to send his pamphlet? Your 
" First Chief " has told the United States to mind its own business, yet 
you insist now that it should consider the Catholic Clergy. Is not this 
asking intervention of your own kind? 

Now zve do not want intervention of any kind. We want the noise 
in the next house, which threatens to give us no rest at all, stopped per- 
manently, when it does stop. It is our right to recognize a neighbor or 
refuse to recognize him. We have already exercised that right with 
Mexico, and we can exercise it again. We can say to Mexico : " Live up 
to your professions ; take the pledge and keep it ; then I'll recognize you, 
not before." Do you see the point, Senor? Our Government is repre- 
sentative, and there is no member of it who does not know that fact. 
There is a sentiment aroused now by the wholesale killings, and robberies, 
and crimes of your friends. That sentiment will not down. It is speak- 
ing to you now, and its voice is penetrating enough to be heard as far as 
Mexico, via representative government. 

It is scarcely necessary for me to ask how long it has been since this 
good Catholic from Mexico has been to confession ; how long since he 
has seen the inside of a Catholic church for spiritual purposes ; how long 
since he has heard a Catholic sermon ; and how much he knows of a very 
small but compact little book of doctrine known as the Penny Cathechism. 
Had he known the little book, he would have known that the Founder of 
the religion he says he professes, hated a liar and condemned him to 
penalties equivalent almost to that of living under the Constitutionalists. 
He would have known that " to bear false witness against your neighbor " 
is one of the crimes forbidden by the Commandments given on Mount 
Sinai. Had he listened to sermons, he would have known that it is the 
mission of the Church to teach, and her glory to educate the people and to 
uplift the poor. He would have known that any law made in manifest 
opposition to that right, is a law for which no Christian nation can have 
any sympathy, or could tolerate. He would have known that the worst 
of all forms of tyranny is that tyranny which strikes at the natural rights 
of mankind. Had he placed his case before the tribunal of penance, he 



20 THE BOOK OF RED AND YELLOW 

would have known that theft, sacrilege, lust and murder can not be apolo- 
gized for, but are simply crimes in the eyes of God and man. If the Senor 
Enriquez is a " faithful " Mexican Catholic, I would pray daily to deliver 
me from the evil of many such as he. But since it is plain that he is an 
utter stranger to the truths that his Faith would have taught him, had he 
given it a chance, I will ask him to open another book, the Constitution of 
the United States of America, and read the principles that are the founda- 
tion of the liberties enjoyed by the people of a democracy which has 
proven a success, and in which the State has no quarrel with the Church, 
and the Church no quarrel with the State. He could there learn what 
principles underlie the convictions of the American people, and see how 
foolishly have his friends acted, in their desire to win our friendship, by 
presuming that we are anarchists instead of republicans. 

It was Abraham Lincoln who said that no State could exist " half 
slave and half free." He might have gone farther and said : that there 
can be no pariahs in a democracy. The Constitutionalists have proclaimed 
their intention of adding to the Laws of Reform and disfranchising the 
clergy. In other words, they want a nominal democracy in Mexico, with 
the clergy for pariahs. They want to cut off one of the largest sections 
of their educated population from using that education for the benefit of 
their country. There is something to be said, but very little, in favor of 
the idea that state servants should abstain from voting, but what can be 
said for the idea that churchmen, receiving no support from the State, 
and living on the free offerings of the people whom they serve, should be 
deprived of one of the first and most essential rights of citizenship. The 
Senor Enriquez may say, perhaps, that it is because they disobey the laws. 
He has already intimated that we must face that charge against the clergy 
of Mexico. Very well, we will face it, face it gladly, pleased, indeed, that 
he gives us the opportunity. 

The clergy have " ignored the laws," he says, of the Mexican Republic. 
He means that .the clergy have disobeyed these laws — that the Church 
has disobeyed them. And it is perfectly true that the Church has had 
institutions of learning and of charity in Mexico contrary to the Laws of 
Reform. It is also true that Mexico has had, during all the reign of 
General Diaz, a dictatorship ; and it is also true that, under that dictator- 
ship, the existence of these institutions was known to the government. 
It is the government's business to enforce its laws if it wants to enforce 
them ; and when it does not enforce them, it recognizes the fundamental 
injustice of them. But leave that aside. The Church has disobeyed the 
laws of Mexico ; but she has disobeyed them to a far less degree than the 
early Christians disobeyed the laws of the Roman Empire; than the 



THE BOOK OF RED AND YELLOW 21 

Pilgrim Fathers disobeyed the laws of Great Britain ; than the Amer- 
ican Colonists disobeyed the laws which imposed the Stamp Tax ; than 
Andreas Hof er disobeyed the laws of Austria ; than Irish Catholics and 
Quakers disobeyed the laws of England ; than Hidalgo disobeyed the 
laws of Spain. Would the Seiior Enriquez applaud or condemn diso- 
bedience in that? 

There are some fundamental rights that the common mind of the 
human race holds to be above the laws. We do not all agree how far these 
rights extend, how much is included in them, yet no one doubts but that 
the conscience answers to God and not to human laws. When the Cath- 
olic Church in Mexico built her schools and established her works of 
charity, she did disobey the Laws of Reform. When a country priest in 
Mexico walked in his cassock to a poor, dying peon, and administered 
the last sacraments at his bedside, which was outside a church building, 
clearly he disobeyed the same laws. When three or four good women 
lived in community for the purpose of nursing the sick, teaching the 
ignorant or caring for orphans, they were in disobedience of the laws, 
though the brothel down the street, with its two dozen prostitutes, was not 
disobeying them. When a Christian Brother taught the poor children to 
read and write, he certainly was violating the law, and some of them paid 
the penalty when they fell bullet-ridden at Zacatecas. Yes, the Catholic 
clergy have disobeyed certain laws ; and had they not done so during the 
last two generations, I question much if the Sehor Enriquez would now 
be able even to read, much less to write; and if the educated class of 
Mexico would be in existence at all, for most of them received all the 
education they have from these religious teachers, who violated the Laws 
of Reform in giving it to them. But in doing this, the clergy did not 
violate the higher law of God. But they did run risks and raised up 
against themselves a band of ingrates, whose ingratitude is without parallel 
in the history of the world. 

Seiior: Very justly leavihg in solitary infamy, as it deserves, the 
deed that was done on the World's Redeemer by the Tragedy of 
Calvary, many men — poets, statesmen, historians — have tried to ascer- 
tain the basest deed of ingratitude ever wrought. Not one of them has 
succeeded ; for, in ignoble procession history has passed before them, 
sons who killed their fathers, false friends who slew true friends, 
daughters who scorned their mothers, wives who stained their husbands' 
names, rulers Avho betrayed their people, Catalines who outbetrayed a 
Brutus, Henrys who outslaughtered a Richard, Neros who outrivaled 
every other matricide. The task of finding the IMountain of Ligratitude 
has hitherto proven too great even for a world's quest. 



22 THE BOOK OF RED AND YELLOW 

Senor : It is no longer necessary to search. The quest is ended. Not 
one man. but a body of men, flaunting the sacred flag of liberty, invoking 
the holy name of God, have arisen to curse the Mother who bore them to 
the family of Civilization, the Mother who guided their shaking steps 
toward the haven of Truth ; the Mother who led them out of the bondage 
of savagery, away from the temples wherein their ancestors' blood 
drenched red the stones of the altars of pagan sacrifice. Infamy has 
found sons, who, claiming their Mother's name, have yet tried to dishonor 
her; who, protected by the love she so freely gave to all her children, 
returned a hatred worse than the worst she has known from her most 
relentless enemies ; whose plans, conceived in malice and laid in darkness, 
are to tear even the faithful from her protecting heart, and drive the 
Mother herself from the home she builded and ornamented with her labor, 
into the desert of the world's contempt ; whose brutality has outdone the 
brute ; whose malice has been more malicious than revenge ; whose lust 
has been more unsparing than sin's, without any of sin's weak excuses ; 
whose greed has been more rapacious than that of the shark, because even 
satiety does not appease it. 

Seiior: There has been written by your friends, the bloodiest and 
most disgraceful chapter in the history of this new continent, a chapter 
which now takes from France the shameful badge she* has hated to wear, 
the red badge that marked her as having given to the world its Greatest 
Terror. They, your friends, have put upon America this crowning 
infamy, and have left to poor Mexico the bearing of the shame of it, until 
some, more ungrateful, more vile and more loathsome than yourselves, 
may arise in the dark days that are to come to outdo you in the effective- 
ness of your work of destruction. Your country is in the grasp of 
anarchy. Your coinage is debased. Your riches are in the coffers of 
strangers. Your people ci-y for peace. Your children cry for bread. 
Your temples are profaned. The seats of your judges have been cast 
down. Your halls of legislation are silent The chair of your authority 
is the prey of bandits ; and your women — God help them — mothers of 
your citizens yet unborn, go into mourning for the black memory of the 
worse than death that has fallen upon them. Mexico, a spectacle for 
angels and men, no longer can rise to accuse you, for gagged and 
manacled, she av/aits the impending stroke of grace. 

Sehor : God is not to be mocked. He has been more than patient, 
but even Infinite Patience must merge into Infinite Justice. Blood calls 
to the Blood shed on Calvary for peace, and the Blood of Calvary will 
answer. Outraged Innocence prays to Eternal Innocence, to vindicate 
purity; and the cry will not echo back to earth unheeded. To-day, in 



THE BOOK OF RED AND YELLOW 23 

the noise of the din of a world at war, men can not hear the plaint of 
poor Mexico ; but the Ear of Eternal Justice is not stopped, and the 
clouds of battle shut out from His Eye no spot on earth where evil deeds 
are done. There is a new Day of Atonement to come, for there is a God 
of nations, Who " slumbers not nor sleeps." 



KEEP POSTED ABOUT 
MEXICO 

By reading the official paper of the 
Catholic Church Extension Society — 

Extension Magazine 



SPREAD THE TRUTH AND 
HELP THE CAUSE 

by securing one new subscriber for 
EXTENSION MAGAZINE 

For a limited period, only $1.00 a year 



Extension Magazine, Drawer S, Chicago, 111. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

0^015 833 544 fi% 



